ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L

Last updated Jun 5, 2026

ESIF.L (iShares MSCI Europe Financials Sector UCITS ETF) and XLFQ.L (Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF) are both Financials Equities funds tracking the MSCI World/Financials NR USD, from iShares and Invesco respectively. Both are passively managed. Over the past 5 years, ESIF.L returned 19.63%/yr vs 9.10%/yr for XLFQ.L. A 0.59 correlation means they provide meaningful diversification when combined. ESIF.L charges 0.18%/yr vs 0.14%/yr for XLFQ.L.

Performance

ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L - Performance Comparison

The chart below illustrates the hypothetical performance of a £10,000 investment in iShares MSCI Europe Financials Sector UCITS ETF (ESIF.L) and Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L). The values are adjusted to include any dividend payments, if applicable.

Different Trading Currencies

ESIF.L is traded in GBP, while XLFQ.L is traded in GBp. To make them comparable, the XLFQ.L values have been converted to GBP using the latest available exchange rates.

Returns By Period

In the year-to-date period, ESIF.L achieves a 3.13% return, which is significantly higher than XLFQ.L's -4.71% return.

ESIF.L

• 1D: 0.83%
• 1M: 3.69%
• YTD: 3.13%
• 6M: 9.24%
• 1Y: 25.77%
• 3Y*: 29.07%
• 5Y*: 19.63%
• 10Y*: —

XLFQ.L

• 1D: 3.26%
• 1M: 2.31%
• YTD: -4.71%
• 6M: -2.62%
• 1Y: 4.63%
• 3Y*: 15.45%
• 5Y*: 9.10%
• 10Y*: 13.02%

*Multi-year figures are annualized to reflect compound growth (CAGR)

ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L - Yearly Performance Comparison

	2026 (YTD)	2025	2024	2023	2022	2021	2020
ESIF.L iShares MSCI Europe Financials Sector UCITS ETF	3.13%	54.55%	20.09%	18.81%	3.59%	20.48%	2.82%
XLFQ.L Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF	-4.71%	7.07%	32.15%	6.12%	-0.39%	37.90%	3.02%

Correlation

The correlation between ESIF.L and XLFQ.L is 0.52, which is moderate. They share some common price drivers but move independently often enough to provide real diversification benefit when combined.

	Correlation
Correlation (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	0.52
Correlation (3Y) Calculated over the trailing 3-year period	0.48
Correlation (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	0.57
Correlation (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history since Nov 24, 2020	0.59

The correlation between ESIF.L and XLFQ.L shifts across timeframes, from 0.48 (3 years) to 0.59 (all time), reflecting how their relationship changes across market environments.

ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L - Sectors Allocation Comparison

Sectors	ESIF.L	XLFQ.L
Financial Services	96.9%	98.0%
Technology	1.0%	1.7%
Industrials	0.4%	0.2%
Consumer Cyclical	0.2%	-
Basic Materials	-	-
Communication Services	-	-
Consumer Defensive	-	-
Energy	-	-
Healthcare	-	-
Real Estate	-	-
Utilities	-	-

Return for Risk

ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L — Risk / Return Rank

Compare risk-adjusted metric ranks to identify better-performing investments over the past 12 months.

ESIF.L

ESIF.L Risk / Return Rank: 44
ESIF.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 43
ESIF.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 43
ESIF.L Omega Ratio Rank: 42
ESIF.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 45
ESIF.L Martin Ratio Rank: 47

XLFQ.L

XLFQ.L Risk / Return Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Sortino Ratio Rank: 14
XLFQ.L Omega Ratio Rank: 13
XLFQ.L Calmar Ratio Rank: 13
XLFQ.L Martin Ratio Rank: 13

The rank (0–100) shows how this investment's returns compare to the risk taken. Higher = better. Based on the past 12 months of data, combining Sharpe, Sortino, and other metrics used by quantitative funds and institutional investors.

ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L - Risk-Adjusted Trends Comparison

This table presents a comparison of risk-adjusted performance metrics for iShares MSCI Europe Financials Sector UCITS ETF (ESIF.L) and Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L). Risk-adjusted metrics are performance indicators that assess an investment's returns in relation to its risk, enabling a more accurate comparison of different investment options.

	ESIF.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Sharpe ratio: Return per unit of total volatility	1.50	0.33	+1.17
Sortino ratio: Return per unit of downside risk	2.13	0.57	+1.56
Omega ratio: Gain probability vs. loss probability	1.27	1.07	+0.20
Calmar ratio: Return relative to maximum drawdown	2.20	0.36	+1.84
Martin ratio: Return relative to average drawdown	7.65	0.84	+6.80
Data is calculated on a 1-year rolling basis and updated daily. The trend shows the change in the indicator over the past month.

ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L - Sharpe Ratio Comparison

The current ESIF.L Sharpe Ratio is 1.50, which is higher than the XLFQ.L Sharpe Ratio of 0.33. The chart below compares the historical Sharpe Ratios of ESIF.L and XLFQ.L, calculated using daily returns over the previous 12 months. A higher Sharpe Ratio indicates better risk-adjusted performance relative to the risk-free rate.

Sharpe Ratios by Period

	ESIF.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Sharpe Ratio (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	1.50	0.33	+1.17
Sharpe Ratio (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period	1.07	0.52	+0.55
Sharpe Ratio (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period	—	0.65	—
Sharpe Ratio (All Time) Calculated using the full available price history	1.17	0.64	+0.53

Drawdowns

ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L - Drawdown Comparison

The maximum ESIF.L drawdown since its inception was -23.55%, smaller than the maximum XLFQ.L drawdown of -35.39%. Use the drawdown chart below to compare losses from any high point for ESIF.L and XLFQ.L.

Drawdown Indicators

	ESIF.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Max Drawdown Largest peak-to-trough decline	-23.55%	-35.39%	+11.84%
Max Drawdown (1Y) Largest decline over 1 year	-11.68%	-12.81%	+1.13%
Max Drawdown (3Y) Largest decline over 3 years	-14.26%	-19.01%	+4.75%
Max Drawdown (5Y) Largest decline over 5 years	-23.55%	-19.01%	-4.54%
Max Drawdown (10Y) Largest decline over 10 years	—	-35.39%	—
Current Drawdown Current decline from peak	-1.84%	-6.62%	+4.78%
Average Drawdown Average peak-to-trough decline	-4.12%	-5.65%	+1.53%
Ulcer Index Depth and duration of drawdowns from previous peaks	3.36%	5.48%	-2.12%

Volatility

ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L - Volatility Comparison

iShares MSCI Europe Financials Sector UCITS ETF (ESIF.L) has a higher volatility of 5.32% compared to Invesco US Financials Sector UCITS ETF (XLFQ.L) at 4.46%. This indicates that ESIF.L's price experiences larger fluctuations and is considered to be riskier than XLFQ.L based on this measure. The chart below showcases a comparison of their rolling one-month volatility.

Volatility by Period

	ESIF.L	XLFQ.L	Difference
Volatility (1M) Calculated over the trailing 1-month period	5.32%	4.46%	+0.86%
Volatility (6M) Calculated over the trailing 6-month period	14.15%	10.48%	+3.67%
Volatility (1Y) Calculated over the trailing 1-year period	17.09%	13.91%	+3.18%
Volatility (5Y) Calculated over the trailing 5-year period, annualized	18.32%	17.52%	+0.80%
Volatility (10Y) Calculated over the trailing 10-year period, annualized	18.22%	20.14%	-1.92%

ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L - Expense Ratio Comparison

ESIF.L has a 0.18% expense ratio, which is higher than XLFQ.L's 0.14% expense ratio. However, both funds are considered low-cost compared to the broader market, where average expense ratios usually range from 0.3% to 0.9%.

Dividends

ESIF.L vs. XLFQ.L - Dividend Comparison

Neither ESIF.L nor XLFQ.L has paid dividends to shareholders.

Tickers have no history of dividend payments

Frequently Asked Questions

Can I hold both ESIF.L and XLFQ.L in my portfolio?

ESIF.L and XLFQ.L have a correlation of 0.52, meaning they provide meaningful diversification benefit when combined. Depending on your allocation goals, holding both could reduce overall portfolio risk.

Which ETF is better, ESIF.L or XLFQ.L?

On fees, XLFQ.L is cheaper at 0.14% per year. The better choice depends on whether you care most about return, fees, risk, or income.

Which ETF is cheaper, ESIF.L or XLFQ.L?

XLFQ.L is cheaper with a 0.14% expense ratio, compared with 0.18% for ESIF.L.

What is the main difference between ESIF.L and XLFQ.L?

Both ETFs track MSCI World/Financials NR USD. They also come from different issuers: iShares and Invesco. Their fees differ too: 0.18% for ESIF.L and 0.14% for XLFQ.L.